This is my fourth post examining arguments presented by ex-members of the United Church of God GCE to explain their criticisms of the Council of Elders. The previous three posts can be found via the links below:
- ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts
- What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 1
- What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 2
This is the third of these posts examining the document What Really Happened in Latin America
In the last post I left off after examining details of an email allegedly sent by Leon Walker to five Latin American pastors. We now continue on page 5 of What Really Happened in Latin America:
This e-mail was forwarded to the Council of Elders in June of 2010, by an elder who was not among the five to whom the e-mail had been sent. Upon reading the e-mail, a portion of the Council expressed anger toward Mr. Walker. Some demanded that Mr. Walker be dealt with for the comments he shared with the pastors, requesting that he be terminated immediately. The decision was made to send three men on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 to talk with Mr. Walker about his e-mail. Roy Holladay, Victor Kubik and Jason Lovelady (HR supervisor) subsequently traveled to Hawkins to meet with Mr. Walker. After a two-hour meeting, Mr. Holladay indicated that the issues were addressed and their questions were answered. Mr. Walker was led to believe this was the end of the matter.
- Leon Walker’s email was forwarded to the COE by an elder who had not been one of the original recipients
- I’m not sure what the relevance of this statement is. It shows that at least one of the five original recipients on-forwarded the email, consistent with Leon Walker’s request that others be “made aware” of the issues in the email.
- The way this reads to me, it seems to be trying to imply some underhandedness on the part of the COE in obtaining the email. Maybe that’s just me, though.
- When the email was read (presumably with most of the COE present?) a portion of the Council expressed anger towards Leon Walker
- Again, I’m not sure of the relevance.
- I consider this hearsay since the authors of this document have not explicitly identified themselves, nor even claimed that any of them were present when this occurred.
- Some COE members “demanded” that Leon Walker be terminated immediately
- Still hearsay, not verifiable fact
- Not particularly relevant. The UCG’s rationale in having a Council of Elders instead of “one man rule” comes from the concept of the wisdom of a “multitude of counsellors” as described in Proverbs 15:22. The important thing here is not what “some” COE members suggested be done, but the decision that was made by following that Biblical principle.
- The decision was made to send three men to talk to Leon Walker about the email.
- After a two-hour meeting, Roy Holladay indicated the issues had been addressed.
- Leon Walker was led to believe this was the end of the matter
- Without further detail explaining what “led” Leon Walker to believe the matter was ended, it would be better to state “Leon Walker believed this was the end of the matter.” The use of the phrase “led to believe” indicates the meeting was concluded in such a way that there was the deliberate intent on the part of those meeting with Leon Walker to leave him with the impression that the matter was completely resolved. It is not clear from the information we have been given that this was the case, and it could be that Leon Walker simply made that assumption.
- Regardless of whether Leon Walker was “led” to believe the matter was ended, revisiting it later is not precluded. Three men were sent on behalf of the COE – but could they be reasonably expected to know the COE’s final decision on the matter without conferring with the full group?
The next paragraph states:
He did not believe he had done anything wrong by sharing his personal opinion with five friends in the ministry since an official document of the church allowed for such communication. Besides, he was responding to the questions of these pastors and he did not initiate providing the information.
I feel like I am having to repeat myself, but this needs to be addressed:
- Leon Walker did not believe he had done anything wrong
- Leon Walker is one man, judging his own actions. Proverbs 21:2 has something to say about that: “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart.”
- While one man, Leon Walker, believed he had done no wrong, a group of men (the COE) weren’t so sure. What ultimately matters, of course, is what the Lord thinks (Proverbs 21:2). Without having direct access to His opinion, however, what should men do? Seek a multitude of counsel among men God has chosen.
- An official document of the church allowed for such communication
- Not explicitly. Please see my previous posts.
- Leon Walker was responding to questions from the five pastors to whom he wrote and did not initiate providing the information
- Why then did Leon Walker introduce the four points of his email with (my emphasis): “But I would like to inform you of some of the issues involved, as you may not be aware of them“?!
- For the full text of the email please see pages five and six of Background to the Situation with Leon Walker and Latin America
The document continues by explaining that at the end of this meeting Leon Walker informed Roy Holladay that he would soon be leaving for a regular trip to Latin America – and Roy Holladay said nothing about cancelling it. As pointed out earlier, Roy Holladay at that stage was meeting with Leon Walker on behalf of the COE. Without having yet consulted with the full COE, there could be no guarantee of what decision might ultimately be made. The fact that Roy Holladay did not then request Leon Walker cancel his trip doesn’t in any way justify Leon Walker refusing to do so when he later was asked.
The document continues:
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Council was informed of the discussion from the day before. That evening the Council passed a resolution giving interim President Holladay the authority to deal with Mr. Walker, including terminating him (this resolution was later made public). The resolution itself is evidence that there was doubt as to whom Mr. Walker worked for; if the issue was clear, there would be no need for such a resolution.
- The council was informed of the discussion
- The council passed a resolution authorising Leon Walker’s termination
- The resolution is evidence there was doubt about who Leon Walker worked for – otherwise no such resolution would be needed
- Interesting assertion – but is it true? Perhaps, given the gravity of the situation, the Council wanted to have had input on the decision, rather than one person just “firing” Leon Walker. Ultimately, though, such doubt is also irrelevant. The question really is: did the COE have the authority and the grounds to remove Leon Walker from his position? Given that he was paid by the UCG US office, not from the tithes of his own members, I don’t see how anyone could argue that the COE did not have such authority (and if there was a valid argument that they lacked the authority, it would have gone to court by now – what is the point of governing documents if, when violated, we just whine about it?). As for the grounds – Leon Walker directly refused an order by his employer (those paying his salary) to meet to discuss issues further. Those issues had significant potential implications for the Latin American membership and assets of the church. Some may see the decision as harsh, but it cannot be said it was without grounds.
The document then asserts:
Authority was given to the president to remove and replace Mr. Walker without ever having a discussion about discipline or offering any other remedy for his e-mail message. Mr. Holladay called Mr. Walker that same evening—Wednesday, June 16—and informed him of a Council request for him to go to Cincinnati for a meeting with them. But Mr. Holladay did not discuss termination with him on the phone nor anything about the Council resolution, even though Mr.
Holladay knew that Mr. Walker was leaving the next day on a trip to South America.
The giving of authority to terminate Leon Walker does not mean the decision had been made to do so – but clearly there was sufficient concern about his behaviour that the possibility had been anticipated. The part about “without ever having a discussion about discipline…” is grossly misleading, since the next step taken was to try to arrange a meeting with Leon Walker. It does not matter that Roy Holladay did not mention termination – had the meeting taken place, it is possible termination wouldn’t have occurred. Without first giving Leon Walker the opportunity to address the concerns, what good would it have done to threaten him with termination? How would you feel if your employer called you and said, “We suspect you’ve been stealing from the company. Please come explain yourself because if you have stolen we’re going to fire you”?
Yes, Leon Walker thought the issues had already been addressed. But we have also been told that he still thought he had done nothing wrong. The COE clearly felt differently – that is sufficient grounds to seek to meet with him again.
Leon Walker responded to the meeting request by asking for more information about the purpose of the meeting, then argued that:
The Council is not my supervisor. I am responsible to answer to the president [in a spirit of cooperation, and in an advisory capacity but not line authority as explained above and in the Rules of Association Article 4-140] and did so on Tuesday. Mr. Holladay did not ask to speak with me once again. In fact, he said he was merely passing on to me the Council’s request. Since there is no basis for the Council to make such a request I saw no reason to cancel the trip.
The COE is not my employer – I don’t work for the church at all. But I consider there is still a certain line of Spiritual authority that is unrelated to any legal documents. If the COE asks me to meet them, I think I would be wise to do so. What harm could it do me? What harm would it have done Leon Walker? His argument is specious.
Mr. Holladay wrote a letter to Mr. Walker on Sunday, June 20, demanding his return to the U.S. The request required Mr. Walker to respond in writing by 5:00 PM on Monday, June 21, 2010 or face termination. On June 22 Mr. Walker was sent a letter removing him as director of the Spanish work and demanding that he return to the U.S. or his employment with UCG would be in jeopardy. Mr. Walker did not return and he was subsequently terminated from employment as well.
This is another case where was is important is what is not said. There seems to be a vague attempt to imply that Leon Walker didn’t respond as required because the timeframe was too short. However, this is not explicitly stated. Why? Because Leon Walker received the letter before the deadline. How do I know this? I don’t. But I’m sure we would have been told if it was any other way.
What really happened? Leon Walker chose not to respond to the request to return to the US – knowing full well that this would result in his termination. All arguments that he was terminated “without ever having a discussion about discipline or offering any other remedy for his e-mail message” are blatantly and provably false. Leon Walker had every opportunity to have such discussion, and he chose not to.
The document then states:
Over the years the leadership of the church has been very tolerant when scheduling meetings with employees. The apostle Paul understood that there are reasons why schedules need to be changed (“Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brethren, but he was quite unwilling to come at this time; however, he will come when he has a convenient time,” 1 Corinthians 16:12).
Once again, our authors use scripture out-of-context and misleadingly (see ex-GCE members’ “letter of explanation” – The Facts for other examples) . On the one hand we have an issue of Leon Walker being instructed to meet to deal with allegations of ethical misconduct. On the other hand we have Paul “strongly urging” Apollos to visit a congregation, but Apollos deciding that is not what he wished to do.
The section of the document detailing the dealings with Leon Walker ends thus:
None of this was done according to proper procedures for terminating an employee. Mr. Walker was removed from employment after 50 years with no severance, no offer of retirement and he has no Social Security. Mr. Walker is 74 years old.
Procedures are not laws. Nothing about the situation that has been described in this document was according to procedure. I am pretty sure it is standard procedure for employees to respond to employers’ requests. It is certainly good Christian conduct to do as another compels you: see Matthew 5:40-42. As for the matter of Leon Walker’s severance, retirement or Social Security: perhaps he should have considered that before he refused a directive upon which his continued employment hinged. Sound harsh? Canceling his trip and meting with the COE wasn’t really that difficult a request, on balance.
“All arguments that he was terminated “without ever having a discussion about discipline or offering any other remedy for his e-mail message” are blatantly and provably false.”
Well done! That point had been so heavily diminished throughout this ordeal that I totally missed it.
I like your approach to this. I had embarked on a similar effort privately, but I have been too busy for such a daunting task, so I really appreciate the time and thought that you have put into your logical critiques of these articles. I’ve wanted so badly for someone to sit down and separate all of the hearsay and speculation from the facts (which are indeed few). You’re blog is definitely living up to its name!
Thanks for your comments. The problem I am starting to have is trying to retain a degree of neutrality. The further I delve into it the more black and white it starts to look to me.
I can certainly understand that you have been too busy to do this yourself. I had no idea when I started what a painstakingly slow process it would be. It helps to know people out there are finding it useful!
[…] What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 3 […]
[…] What Really Happened in Latin America – The Facts – Part 3 […]